Effective Public Involvement Using Limited Resources (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

3CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION The purpose of this synthesis is to document the experiences of transportation agencies and other relevant entities in the application of techniques used to involve the public in the development of transportation plans and projects. This sec- tion provides the project background, discusses the technical approach, and describes the organization of this report. PROJECT BACKGROUND The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1950 was the first piece of legislation that required “public involvement.” This legis- lation required states to hold public hearings for projects bypassing cities and towns. It provided notification to the public that a project would be constructed, and advertised that a public hearing would be held where information about the project would be available to the public. The demographic of the times gave rise to minimal “public involvement plans” that mirrored narrow life and work styles. Notification con- sisted primarily of placing advertisements in the local morning and/or evening newspapers and on local radio, as television was still in its infancy. Since the passage of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1950 and the federal transit laws originally enacted in 1964, interested parties have been given important opportunities to voice their perspectives in the development of transportation solutions. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ensured that individuals would not be denied an equal right to partic- ipate on the basis of race, color, or national origin in all pro- grams receiving federal-aid assistance. This was followed by passage of the National Environmental Policy Act in 1969 and the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970, which decisively established the opportunity for public involvement through- out the location and design processes. The passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) extended the opportunity for public involvement in the transportation planning process. It was followed by the signing of the Executive Order on Environmental Justice in 1994, which sought to ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected commu- nities in the transportation decision-making process. Within two years, the FHWA released its Community Impact Assess- ment, A Quick Reference for Transportation, and, by 1998, Community Impact Assessment and Context Sensitive Solu- tions had been adopted as formal processes that would help to identify community characteristics and values, and facil- itate public involvement in the decision-making process. In 2000, the Executive Order on Limited English Proficiency was signed, which placed increased emphasis on providing meaningful access to decision-making information. The Executive Order was followed by the release of FHWA’s 2002 publication Public Involvement Techniques for Trans- portation Decision-Making. More recently, the 2005 trans- portation re-authorization legislation placed emphasis on improved community quality of life through exercising flexibility in solving transportation problems. Each of these successive steps has sought to effectively engage all of “many” publics in our society in transportation decision making to integrate their issues, values, and preferences in the process. Since 1950 there also have been dramatic changes in the ways and instruments used to receive and send information. Newspaper circulation has declined as some newspapers have folded and others have been reduced to on-line news. Radio’s focus has changed from a primary source of infor- mation to entertainment. Television has come of age and gone from black and white to color and from free to subscription. Telephones have changed from multi-party operator-assisted lines to individual multi-line wireless cell units. All media has been overshadowed by the power of the Internet with streaming video, Skype, and the advent of social network- ing vehicles such as Flickr, Facebook, My Space, and YouTube. Change has also come to the face of America, as it has gone from a nation dominated by European immigrants to a nation of immigrants from all countries. As such, it is esti- mated that “Caucasians” in America will be the minority before mid-century. Other demographic changes such as increases in those with longer life expectancies, those more than 65 years old, those with low literacy, those living in poverty, and those speaking a non-English language continue to occur. In addition, more of the nation’s population now lives in urban rather than rural areas. These changes, and others yet to be defined, create even more social, technological, and financial challenges for agencies as they attempt to provide effective public involve- ment and ensure equity and inclusiveness for all in public involvement.

4TECHNICAL APPROACH The technical approach used in preparing this synthesis con- sisted of conducting a literature review, designing a tele- phone survey instrument, conducting detailed telephone interviews, and summarizing the results of these two efforts to identify where agencies creatively have used low-cost tools and techniques. Literature Search A literature review was conducted that predominately utilized a Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) search. This resulted in the identification of 57 publications, 16 websites, 4 metropolitan planning organization (MPO) websites, four DOT websites, 6 poverty and cultural publica- tions, and 2 poverty and cultural websites that were thought to be relevant to this project. An abstract of each publication and website has been provided so that the reader will have a clearer idea of the publication’s and website’s focus. The results of the literature search can be found in the References. Survey Design A survey instrument with 40 open-ended questions was cre- ated that addressed the direct focus of the project, additional panel concerns, and potential factors that influenced the qual- ity of public involvement. The complete 40 question survey can be found in Appendix A. The survey questions were divided into the following 11 areas of interest: • Organizational structure • Staffing • Cost quantification • Public involvement process (social/community issues, studies, and reports) • Public involvement process (level of effort, education, and documentation) • Public involvement process (goals) • Public involvement process (communicating public input and commitments) • Definitions of successful, effective, and cost-effective public involvement • Measures of effectiveness • Effective, cost-effective, and ineffective techniques • Leveraging relationships. Survey Beta Test Participants In October 2008, individuals at three DOTs were contacted and sent a copy of the initial survey. These individuals held various positions of responsibility and authority within their agencies and were from a variety of professional disciplines. A follow-up telephone call was made to each to see if they would be willing to participate in beta testing the survey. Each agreed and appointments were made with each to conduct the survey by telephone. At the appointed time, each was contacted and four agency representatives from the three agencies partici- pated in the detailed telephone interviews. Minor adjustments were made to the survey as a result of their participation. Revised Survey Participants Following the beta testing of the survey and its revision indi- viduals at 8 state DOTs, 11 MPOs (also known as an area development district, a council of governments, a regional planning commission, a metropolitan council, an area coun- cil, and a regional planning commission), 2 transit agencies, and 2 local governments were contacted between November 2008 and April 2009 and sent a copy of the survey. Appoint- ments were made to conduct the survey by telephone at this time, and 27 agency representatives from 23 agencies partic- ipated in the telephone interviews. The 26 agencies that par- ticipated in the beta test and the revised survey were located in 19 states, served constituencies that ranged in size from 82,000 to more than 33,000,000 people, had constituencies that were demographically homogeneous and diverse, and were located in areas that were rural and urban, as shown in Figure 1. These agencies can be found in Appendix B. Survey Results The 26 responses to the 40 question survey are summarized and presented by question and agency type. Under each agency type, an individual summary of each agency’s response is pro- vided, which can be found in Appendix C. In addition, exam- ples of where agencies provided effective public involvement using limited resources have been documented in Appendix D. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT Chapter one provides information relative to the project back- ground, technical approach, and organization of the report. Chapter two summarizes the findings of the literature review and identifies publications and websites that are thought to pro- vide insight into achieving better public involvement. Chapter three presents a summary of the survey results by each of the 11 areas of interest. Chapter four provides examples where agencies have provided effective public involvement using limited resources. Chapter five presents conclusions from the synthesis project and suggestions for further research. The References contain an annotated list of the publica- tions and websites that address the focus of this study. A list of key acronyms is also supplied. Appendix A is the survey instrument, Appendix B provides a list of the agencies sur- veyed and the agencies’ geographic locations, Appendix C provides a summary of the survey responses by question and agency type, and Appendix D provides examples of how agen- cies creatively used low-cost tools and techniques to achieve effective public involvement using limited resources.

5FIGURE 1 Geographic location of the participating transportation agencies.